HONTHIEM, Johann Nikolaus von. — Bishop and canonist, better known under the pseudonym of Febronius; he is the initiator of the movement which took its name from him, Febronianism. Born in Trier on 22 January 1701, died at Montquintin (Luxembourg) on 2 September 1790. He studied theology and canon law at Trier, Louvain (where he was a pupil of the canonist Van Espen), and Leiden. After holding various offices, in 1748 he was appointed coadjutor of the archbishop and vicar general of Trier.
Professor and later pro-chancellor of the University, he devoted himself to diligent historical research: in 1750 he published the monumental *Historia Trevirensis diplomatica et pragmatica*, completed seven years later by a supplement (*Prodromus*). These studies prepared him for his major work, on which he labored for twenty years, published in 1763 in Frankfurt under the veil of anonymity: *Iustini Febronii iurisconsulti de statu ecclesiae deque legitima potestate Romani pontificis liber singularis ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione constitutus*. The aim of the book, proclaimed in the title, was to promote the return of separated Christians to the unity of the Church, but in reality its content was anything but irenic, revealing an intent to transform the constitution of the Church by emptying the authority of the Roman Pontiff as its head. The preface already reveals its character. It is in fact an appeal to the Pope himself, and then to princes, bishops, theologians, and canonists, to place limits on papal power in the Church, which had been corrupted by the “system of ecclesiastical monarchy.” To this end, H. outlines in the nine lengthy chapters of the book a veritable treatise on ecclesiastical public law, entirely anti-papal in purpose. The institution of the primacy is not denied, but it is interpreted in such a way as to demonstrate that Christ gave the primacy not to St. Peter alone, but to all the Apostles, and therefore to the Church. The Pope, therefore, has in the Church a true authority, not merely a primacy of honor, but neither does he possess a primacy of jurisdiction (an expression strongly contested by H.): he is the “center of the unity of the Church,” observes ecclesiastical legislation (“index of the canons”), and exercises limited powers as judge and teacher of the Church. These, according to H., would be the “essential rights of the primacy,” and such, he claims, was the constitution of the Church until the ages of the “great sinners” (magnus ille peccator), who profoundly altered its nature by granting the Pope new rights, in usurpation of the rights of the bishops. Among these he includes the so-called major causes (which concern bishops), ecclesiastical laws, and the supreme authority of ecumenical councils. The ecclesiastical system which H. advocates should reclaim these rights for the episcopate, giving the Church a constitution essentially based on the bishops, sovereign in their own dioceses and in the ecumenical council. In the final chapter, H. suggests practical means “to recover ecclesiastical freedom,” concluding from the Holy See that his system naturally leads to the subjection of the Church to the State, for, convinced of the weakness of the bishops, he attributes to the prince, whom he extols as “patron of the Church,” the principal task of reclaiming the primitive ecclesiastical constitution and of fighting against the Holy See. Thus H., starting from a system of anti-papal episcopalism, “delivered the Church into the hands of the secular power” (Pastor).
The book immediately enjoyed great success, especially in the German lands (German, French, Italian, and Portuguese translations were made), because it responded to the spirit of the age, favoring the struggle against papal authority waged by most Catholic sovereigns to establish the supremacy of the State over the Church (v. REGALISM; PARATISM); moreover, it seemed to correspond to the contemporary works of political writers who sought to regulate and transform the constitution of civil society. Brilliant in exposition and rich in historical erudition, the book contains inconsistencies and serious errors, and is not original, being dependent on Gallican writers and especially on Van Espen. Beneath the appearance of historical-juridical research, it reveals its character as a great anti-papal pamphlet, not unlike other works of eighteenth-century anti-papal polemic (e.g., the writings of Giannone). The work was immediately placed on the Index (1764) and met with many Catholic refutations; the most important was that of Fr. A. M. Zaccaria (*Antifebrino*, 2 vols., Pesaro 1776). St. Alphonsus de Liguori also wrote a polemical pamphlet in 1768 (*Vindiciae pro suprema Romani pontificis potestate adversus I. Febronium*).
H. maintained his errors in the new editions of the book that followed from 1765 to 1777; subsequently he submitted to the Holy See and even wrote (1781) a refutation of his own work; yet even his retractions are not fully orthodox, and the sincerity of his conversion is doubted. His doctrine continued to exert influence even into the first half of the nineteenth century (in Italy, Pietro Tamburini represents his ideas in the work *Vera idea della S. Sede*). The Vatican Council, by solemnly defining the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff (Denz. 1826-31), put an end to all these errors.